From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 14 06:44:51 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A000D16A41B for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:44:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from girgen@pingpong.net) Received: from proxy1.bredband.net (proxy1.bredband.net [195.54.101.71]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6189313C468 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:44:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from girgen@pingpong.net) Received: from c-6254e155.1521-1-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se (85.225.84.98) by proxy1.bredband.net (7.3.127) id 46E93261000403FB; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:44:47 +0200 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:44:48 +0200 From: Palle Girgensohn To: Francisco Reyes Message-ID: <26F41A5DACB2D2CB43A5829E@c-6254e155.1521-1-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se> In-Reply-To: References: <1F219879A7E5C565C96109FF@c-2f56e155.1521-1-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.6 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD or Intel? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:44:51 -0000 --On torsdag, torsdag 13 sep 2007 19.44.50 -0400 Francisco Reyes wrote: > Palle Girgensohn writes: > >> Presently ~pgsql/data has a 16 GB footprint. > > If you can put 4GB or better in your machine you should do well. > Specially since you mentioned you are mostly read with relatively small > amount of writes. > >> The growth is rather slow, around a percent per week Sorry, my mistake, more like a percent per day at the moment... We are planning about 16 GB RAM, actually. Maybe it is overkill? > What controller are you getting? > We have a 3ware SATA controller with RAID6 and it performs pretty well. > Based on what you wrote SATA RAID should be enough for your load and > usage pattern. > > Obviously if you can afford SCSI/SAS performance will likely be even > better. However make sure you can get management program for the > controller. At the very least some type of notification if the raid is > degraded. We will probably go for SCSI. HP DL380 with "HP SmartArray", aka ciss.